Using a Group Stimulus Preference Assessment to Design an Effective Group Contingency

Fluharty and team worked with a middle-school class of the students.

They ran a 5-minute group paired-stimulus preference test.

Kids voted by raising hands to pick the class-wide reward.

Then they compared two group contingencies: one with the top-voted (high-p) prize and one with the least-voted (low-p) prize.

Class preparedness was tracked across alternating days.

High-p reward days doubled class preparedness.

Students also said they felt more motivated on those days.

Low-p reward days barely moved the needle.

The quick group vote picked winners that actually worked.

Duker et al. (1996) first showed that top items from a short choice test reliably work as reinforcers. Fluharty extends that idea from one kid to an entire classroom.

Asaro et al. (2023) also used alternating days to test group contingencies, but they compared team vs teacher-set rules. Fluharty keeps the interdependent structure and swaps in high-p vs low-p prizes instead.

Sheridan et al. (2024) validated a new preference tool with adults. Fluharty’s group hand-raise method is another new format, and it also lines up with later reinforcer success.

Matson et al. (2013) found unfamiliar toys can still be powerful for preschoolers with autism. Fluharty’s class sometimes picked new rewards, yet those items still boosted work output, echoing the same open-minded selection message.

You can run the whole process in under ten minutes.

Ask the class to pick between two prizes, tally the votes, and use the winner as the daily group reward.

No individual interviews, no fancy materials.

If the prize stops working, just re-vote.

Middle-schoolers stay prepared and you get smoother lesson starts.